Recently in Technology Category

I was playing around with a number of different compression settings for uploading video to YouTube as I was disappointed with how the recompressed .flv files were looking. It worked okay but optimizing it was timeconsuming as each generation require compressing the video and then uploading the 100 MB file into YouTube and waiting for it to be compressed into a FLV before being able to preview its final output.

If you have access to it, I'd recommending using the new Apple iMovie software. It handles this kind of exporting and uploading to YouTube painlessing. I wouldn't use iMovie to edit anything professionally, but taking a finished anamorphic DV file into it totally simplified the hassle of getting widescreen content to playback with the correct aspect ratio correct in YouTube.

That said, I can't wait until Adobe adopts H.264 playback into their Flash plugin.

I'm having zero luck with the IM feature on Twitter. It says it's always down for maintenance.

The Facebook Twitter application is still a little flaky but it seems to be better than it was a couple of days ago.

House Dems: Broadband isn't broadband unless it's 2Mbps

This via Ars Technica. Apparently there is a move in the US to have the FCC redefine what broadband is. The discussion is that the definition needs to be increased from 200 kb to 2 Mb.

Sounds radical in a sense considering that a lot of ADSL high-speed runs at 1.5 Mb.

I've been using a service that runs at 256 kb lately, and it sure doesn't feel like high-speed especially when you're used to using a 5 Mb service as I've spent a lot of time doing.

I think there does need to be a concerted push to get most home broadband up to 25 Mb. Just odd that it's the government giving this a push in this case rather than consumers or the ISPs.

Now that Microsoft has introduced Vista and it's Gadget capability and creates a new way to display web content, here comes the bold predictions on how web pages are obsolete.

Whatever...

With every innovation of type, there's a group of people it suits and some it just doesn't. Look at RSS as an example. It suits a certain number of people just fine but adoption for RSS is still quite low even though most popular browser support it in some fashion or another. As with everything new, there will always be the people who were just fine with it the way it was and won't change. Not everyone will spend the time to customize their desktop to have all the usual information at their fingertips. The last I heard a few years back when "personalization" of websites was all the rage, it topped out at around 30% adoption.

I just don't believe the desire to personalize is that great if the current method of use it is largely satisfactory to the user with no customization needed.

If Gadgets or Widgets (I've just been calling them Gidgets and Wadgets to be "cross-platform") were going to take the world by storm in the space of a few short years, it would have happened already. Apple OS X has had these features for years now. And before Vista you could download software called Konfabulator that does what Widgets and Gadgets do today. It was cool and I used it back then, but it didn't totally transform my information consumption.

Now that's not to say, this isn't an important technology, but it's going to take awhile to take hold and it won't make the webpage as we know it obsolete any time soon.

So, relax and go hire a usability specialist and an ace web shop to spruce up your website. It'll be relevant for a good while yet.

I'll be candid.

I am really tired of a lot of advertising out there.

That might sound like something odd to say for someone in advertising, but I feel that way for the most part because I know most conventional advertising is largely ineffective at reaching me - a high-value demo (if I do say so myself). As an example, I watch a high-definition channel from my local cable provider that is programmed out of Toronto instead of locally. I listen to very little radio - only a few minutes a day in the car. Other than the music I listen to is from iTunes. I don't read the local newspaper. The most news I get is from the Globe and Mail RSS feed in Google's Gmail.

One thing I have been excited about is the in-game advertising offering available through Massive Incorporated, one of Microsoft's recent acquisitions. I became acquainted with this company before all that and I really like what they are doing for advertising.

Here are some thoughts on why I think in-game advertising is such a good media placement.

Perhap the biggest merit of in game-advertising is that the ad is placed in an environment where the user's attention is extremely focussed.
Have you every talked to someone playing a video game? You don't exist. And God-forbid you walk in front of the TV! They will freak out/or try to look past you to continue what they were doing before the interruption. There are no potty breaks or PVR fast forwarding as there is with broadcast television. And it's hard to ignore because it's embedded in the game environment - unlike convential banner advertising that we have all learned to ignore because it's existence on the page in no way supports our agenda as a user and is generally placed on the periphery of the content.

It's the most measurable placement in it's delivery of a quality impression.
Massive counts an impression once it has been on screen for a cumulative 10 secs. A 9 second impression doesn't count or cost anything. So when you pay for an impression you know it has been seen. This is its biggest advantage over any banner ad (it's closest sibling to an existing media choice by technical definition). You can not measure how many times a consumer has looked at your banner ad. You only know when the web browser has requested it from the server and placed it somewhere in a webpage. There is no way of know if the user has scrolled past it on the page or more than likely not paid a bit of attention to it because they are looking at the part of the page that they are interested in (which I'm sorry to say is not the ads). In this way, I would argue the length of the impression and the placement of the impression are far superior.

There is a certain caché of the in-game the placement by positioning your brand as a peer with the other advertisers currently doing placements in this channel.
This one is hard to quantify but would you rather have an ad in Fortune or the local chamber pub if the same amount of people would see it? Would you rather appear beside an ad for some other global brand or appear alongside a local restaurant or auto dealer? Placing an ad in a game has the benefit of placing you alongside other global brands that are placing ads. In the process, I think this demonstrates a higher brand value and esteem because of the company you are keeping as an advertiser.

First mover advantage.
This stuff is new. It's good positioning for a brand to be where the new things are happening. And if you place localized ad (that they can offer by measn of IP geotargetting), it's going to be noticed by users - especially now when it's new.

It's a more modern & immersive type of placement.
The usual "content you like" then "ads to pay the bills" then "content you like" then "more ads to pay the bills" is getting a bit old in places. Branded content and product placement is a big growth area in advertising (some would argue the future of advertising - I hope to goodness it'll be tastefully done) but it makes it difficult for local brands to play the game because their audience and brand is geographically constrained. While no character in the game is going to interact virtually with your product in the game (today anyway - tomorrow maybe), this is an opportunity to secure a more immersive ad placement than the usual fare and I think that makes it a little more palatable to a cynical and advertising-weary public.

It's skews towards the elusive 18-34 demo which is often identified as a key audience but is hard to find in conventional media placements.
They've fled radio. They multitask on the computer (likely chatting on MSN) while watching television. Forget most print. Gaming has become a social hub with new web-networked consoles and voice communication connecting you with your friends during game play. And if they've left conventional media, it's been to come here.

It's a media placement that gives access to early technology adopters and influencers.
Find someone who gaming on an XBOX360 console and you've got someone at ease with technology, an early adopter and very likely someone who influences the technology decisions of those around them. Take me as an example - since buying an Apple computer in the spring - two other Apple computers have been purchased by members of my family because of my influence. Influencers are a worthy target when promoting technology-based products or services.

It's inexpensive to get in the door and an excellent value in comparison to other electronic placements.
In my opinion, it's a very modest investment for chance to delve into and gain some experience in an emerging online marketing opportunity alongside the big boys. The CPM may be higher than a conventional banner ad but it's well worth it. Industry click-throughs on banner ads are well below one percent. Banner ads are much weaker in terms of recall. (I'd defy anyone to recall a half dozen they saw yesterday). Frankly, I'd value an in-game ad at 10 times a conventional banner ad for all of the reasons above.

So, it's been interesting to see the brands that are placing advertising. It's generally the leading-edge clients and agencies with larger budgets that are pushing forward. I know Taxi has been placing ads for BMW Mini (good on ya!). I know some telcos and cellphone providers are advertising. As more agencies and clients figure out the value proposition here, it could get pricey and exclusive. But depending on how game title developers react to the demand for an 18-34 male demo, they may add a bunch of ad inventory opportunities into the game (but at the risk of gamer backlash). This is a delicate balance for them and I expect this will change something in terms of the consumer model for game pricing.

I'm going to be talking more about this. It's the most interesting and worthwhile ad product I've seen in a long time.

Advertising NEEDS more of this kind of thing...

Check out the Massive website at:

www.massiveincorporated.com

Naming is one of the most underemphasized aspects of brand design.

The most common mistake - names that are too abstract or non-descriptive - often done in the name of sounding cool or creative. One of the best practices - naming a product/service so that it associates itself with the product category without explanation - so I kind of get it after just hearing the name.

One of the better examples in recent memory of good product naming - iTunes.

This has it's own catch-22. What about something wonderfully named like iTunes when you want to expand the offering to video-based content when the name suggests a music-based offering.

Well, it looks like the first thing Apple did is quit calling it the iTunes Music Store in favour of shortening it to iTunes Store. (At least, that's how it appear in my lamer Canadian version where I can't actually purchase movies).

I'm really interested in seeing how this works out. Success in one category doesn't alway ensure success in a seemingly related market. And the competitors are started to stack up in this category with several other recent high-profile video download launches - Amazon among them.

I'm watching this case study with interest. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple evolves the naming of iTunes gradually to position the brand for market leadership success in the movie and video content category. Although currently used to name their simple video editing software - the name iMovie is kicking around the stable.

They face some challenges though. The name is one. The other is that they are up against a more sophisticated digital right management technology in Microsoft's Windows Media DRM. Fancier technology affords control is this is the kind of thing that content owners like Hollywood studios get seduced by. Although for all the WM DRM technology innovation, Microsoft and partners have come nowhere near replicating iTunes success.

And I don't care how wonderful the Zune is - Microsoft is at a huge disadvantage is trying to make up ground in this race. This isn't like switching where you buy your cup of coffee. Consider the collective consumer investment in iPod players, the money spent on proprietary iTunes songs and getting used to the best user experience around - I'm not going to be switching to anything else anytime soon and I don't think I'm alone in that view.

Picked up an Airport Express tonight. Love it! So nice being able to control your music on the living room stereo from your laptop. And I've switched over to iTunes as my main jukebox software so it works great.

The wireless setup was very simple (even on a PC with a simple software install) and I was up and running on the wireless network in no time at all.

All my Apple experiences seem to be positive so far.

Yes, finally got a tip of a few getting shipped in at the local Costco and managed to get my hands on one. I think it's ridiculous how Microsoft has handled this product launch. How do they really expect to drive sales of this thing at a critical retail period when busy people have to drive around and try to find one in the week or ten days before Christmas?

This thing is going the complete wrong direction.

The more I think about this, this more it seems to me that Microsoft has dropped the ball in colossal proportions.

- Huh? Where is the amazing cool launch title?
- Huh? I likely can't get one until after Christmas?
- Huh? It looks good onscreen, but not that much better than the original XBOX ?
- Huh? I need Windows Media Centre Edition to be able to fully integrate with all of its available features on my desktop?
- Huh? Where's Halo 3?

Nevermind...how long until PS3 is out?

After watching the Halo 2 launch go so well, I see no excuse why this launch is so weak by comparison.

Maybe there is some brilliant strategy here, but I sure don't see it. All the buzz so far is around problems.

I was kind of hoping for something like the Halo 2 launch. This seemed kind of anti-climactic. The take away for me was reported glitches and supply problems and some pissed off people who put money down and didn't get a console on launch day.

I played it the first day on a hi-def projector and was impressed in places but not blown away. I wasn't expecting to be totally floored but in places I thought the game should have looked a little better.

Either way, it looks like I'm going to have to wait a few weeks to get one. It would have been nice to have a really good launch game, like there was with the original Halo.

If they keep up at this pace, the story is going to be PS3 - not XBOX.